Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by lcuani

  1. 25 minutes ago, perapera said:

    Yes, I think you got it all wrong, sorry :)


    You should read it again...


    I wrote that the attenuation or the boost is happening at the merge block mixer not at the split


    I wrote that the a/b split "route to" parameter is not very well suited to mix between two different amps (or cabs) on the two paths, but just to switch between them


    and the acoustic power sum thing applies to... well acoustics, so we're talking real hardware speakers not the virtual speaker cabinets inside of helix


    Yes i got it that it happens in the merge., but i dont think that would matter at all in this subject since any db boost or attenuation happening in the split would end up being compensated by the attenuation/boost in the merge block. (since in this case we are not talking about preamps or dirt box that change its tone based on the input gain)..


    But either way " and the acoustic power sum thing applies to... well acoustics, so we're talking real hardware speakers not the virtual speaker cabinets inside of helix" may explain why the volume still changes... 

    I will read it again when i get home to see if there's anything i have missed. But i think the main issue is already resolved ... I'd better create snapshots with different blends of the cabs and try to match the volumes instead of using the expression to control the route parameter of the A/B split


    It's way more laborious but at least i wont keep stuck in a method that will mislead me due to volume differences.

    Thank You!!!

  2. 1 hour ago, perapera said:

    you may find this helpful:


    VERY helpful. SO if i understood correctly, if i use the A/B split to send the signal from an amp block to  2 differnt ccab, in theory it would add 3 db to the signal ("2) when you send a signal to a speaker and then send the same identical signal also to another identical speaker you get +3dB (acoustic power sum")

    In this case, the pan law attenuation would make perfect sense, right? 3 db reduction in a scenario where i would have 3 db boost... right?


    Because i am using this method and really feel like, changing the route parameter in the a/b split block changes the overall volume when it shouldnt since the pan law attenuation would attenuate in the middle and not in hte sides...


    Did i get it wrong?


    Thank You!!

  3. Hi all.

    I've been really searching for a list of the input impedances of the effects in the helix. I believe there is one in somewhere.

    Just want to know if any of you have a list of the values of the input impedance for each effect when helix is set to auto.


    Thanks in advance

  4. Just now, njglover said:

    Pretty much what others have said. If you aren't super interested in how it sounds live, then just use the speakers you'll be mixing on (assuming you will be doing the mixing). If you aren't mixing, then good studio monitors. I actually went with 5" speakers and a sub. If I didn't have the sub, though, I'd probably go for 8" drivers. But the setup I have sounded the best to my ears.

    ty. If i end up going for a 5'' speaker, what sub would u guys recommend me

  5. On 1/9/2019 at 11:28 AM, phil_m said:

    You can use multiple instances if the same Send block, but not of the same Return block. So you could probably do something merging two paths together before the Return.


    The bigger issue, though, is that the POG 2 is a mono effect, so you would lose any separation of those signals going into it.

    Wel .. this sucks :(


    I intended to use Digitech the Drop the same way.. 

    Ty mate

  6. 39 minutes ago, gunpointmetal said:

    Studio monitors for recording tones, you'll get better detail than you will from lower-priced PA-style speakers. In that price range I'd say look at KRK Rokits, or Tannoy 502s. I was looking for something around that budget and ended up with the Tannoys over the KRKs, just because to my ears the KRKs have a weird boxiness that I don't hear anywhere else when listening to fully-mastered album reference tracks. You will have to dial in different patches for recording/live use due to volume, but I can get a pretty solid idea of my live tones at home, then do the minor tweaking at gig volume, which usually consists of shaving off a little more high and low end then I would for recording (even if I'm cutting that stuff out later in mixing, I prefer to track just a little fat and bright just in case).

    I've been looking the krk rokits. Stayed in doubt if i should go for the 5'', 6'' or 8'' version. I intend to use it kinda close in my home studio. I guess the 5'' and 6'' are more suited to this application right?


    Ty for helping.


  7. 11 minutes ago, cruisinon2 said:


    Speakers account for at least half your tone... so anytime you change from one speaker(s) to another, you can expect the tone change to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the circumstances.


    The biggest hurdle to overcome is volume.... patches need to be dialed in at or near the volume at which you intend to use them. Our perception of sound,  particularly the relative loudness of different frequency ranges varies considerably with large volume differences. There's nothing that can be done about this, it's just how our brains work. You can't assume that a tone you've dialed in at stage volume will sound the same at bedroom levels, and vice versa.


    Also, moving from whatever speakers you're playing through live, to listening through studio monitors or headphones while recording, is an additional variable. 


    Bottom line is this... you can expect to have to do some tweaking of your patches for different uses, and some tones might require more adjusting than others. It's just the nature of the beast.

    Oh well. This is kind of a issue in recording tones since you never know what volume and through what speakers people will hear you... What would be a good aproach to dial a tone you intend to use in a recording?


    Thanks for the help.

  8. Hi. First of all, sorry for possible bad english.


    I am about to buy helix along with some kind of speakers.  I know that there are tons of topis related to speakers to use with helix but most of them are old and dont answer my specific doubt (actually most dont aproach dialing tones with recording in mind).


    My band have a pair of JBL EON615. I guess they might be good to dial tones to use live(most places i play already have a PA system with floor monitors) but i am not sure if tones to use live will translate well to record. 

    For recording purposes i guess studio monitors with speakers of 5'',6'',7'' or 8''  are better suited.. am i right? if so, Could you give me some recommendations of something around $400?



    And the other way around would work well? i mean... tones dialed to record could be used live with good fidelity? It seens way to much effort in having to dial each patch twice. One for live use and other for recording.



    Finally..... Am i just thinking to much? i could just dial tones in the JBL and then record with them and the results would be good?


    Thank you in advance for the help





  9. Hi. Is there anyway to use send/ return 1 twice in the same preset?


    I want to use  presets in witch i use path 1 to mag pickup and 2 to piezo ( both played at the same time ). i am using the pickup through the aux in.


    I have a POG2 that i want to use both in the piezo and mag signals.


    Is there any way to do that?



    Thanks in advance

  10. 44 minutes ago, Meiannatee said:

    Sorry for the late reply. Just my opinion here: there are a bunch of cases where gain compensation is not desirable.

    E.g. when setting up path A with clean amp, path B with dirty amp, and toggling them for gapless switching.

    E.g. when path B is for 100% wet, path A dry, and then using the exp pedal to blend in as much wetness as desired.


    In both examples, you would want consistent levels for each path by itself (except the 100% wet path).

    There may be some workarounds using the FX send and return.

    Another way (that is quite DSP limiting) is setting BOTH inputs - top and bottom chain - to guitar. Now you need to put an amp+cab block on both signal chains, and can't share anything between chains, but u get 4 paths.


    Thankfully, we seldom need to split to 4 paths. With 2 paths, you can have 2 effects that are independent, plus one "bonus" dry path by using the Mix control available in most FX blocks.


    Also, personal opinion again, delay into reverb sounds cool and natural. If they repeats muddy up the dry sound, using a darker delay or one with low-pass filter control will usually solve that.

    Yes. No level compensation seens the right thing to do. Especially if the level compensation happened in the split block.. it would make signal reach amp with less gain than intended.

    And yes. I guess you are right about hardly using 4 splits. THe most standard effects to run in parallel are delay and reverb and this is easily acomplished. Its just that seens you cant make delay, reverb and chorus in parallel with no effect feeding into each other wich is easily acomplished with the gt 1000 nested splits... but its a very specific use case. I bet that even in boss gt 1000 few people are using this nested splits capability.


  11. Still in the split subject. I see that in the boss gt-1000 you can split path and then split the result of the split (i dont know if what i am saying translates what i want to say)... like nested splits.. it would be useful to have delay, reverb and other effect and none feed into each other. From what i see this isn't possible in the heliz. Am i right?

  12. 22 minutes ago, Meiannatee said:

    I haven't tested this so correct me if I'm wrong:


    1) Split levels

    Levels at split = levels going into split path.

    I.e. if amp is in split path, higher split levels will drive the amp harder.


    With no panning/balance changes, each path = same as before split.


    1a) Split>Y

    Default - duplicates signal to 2 paths (no volume drop).

    Pan to either side = reduce volume on one channel (L or R) while maintaining volume on the other channel.


    1b) Split>A/B

    Duplicates signal to 2 paths.

    Turn "balance" control off center = reduce volume of one path (both L&R channels) while maintaining volume on the other path.


    2) Merge

    Sums path A and B.

    I.e. After merge = (A_left + B_left) and (A_right + B_right).


    Merge level is post-split blocks.

    I.e. if amp is in path A/B, merge level does not affect amp gain.


    Sum of 2 sources of equal volume = +3dB.

    E.g. If u split without changing pan or balance, don't change levels on both paths, and don't change levels/pan on merge, then level after merge vs. before split is +3dB.


    Each channel of each path is an individual sound source.

    E.g. Hard-pan both paths to L = +3dB L and -inf dB R (or -60, doesn't matter)

    E.g. Hard-pan path A to R, path B to L = same post-merge level (if L&R channels are the same in both paths)

    TY, a lot of information here. I thought helix had a system to compensate this 3 db level gain removing 3 db from each path. BUt seens the behaviior is standard

  13. 21 hours ago, zolko60 said:

    Good questions!
    Actually when I make either Y or A/B split I hear my guitar louder, so there is no gain compensation.
    Split Y is even between A/B paths with respect to gain but you can adjust pan balance, so maybe there is some paning law compensation?
    Swapping A/B Paths works better with A/B Split automation than Merge Mixer automation because you can set level to minus infinity vs. -60dB in merge mixer what leaves some bleed.

    Exploring Helix is so exciting!

    Thank you for the help. So it seems, in a A/B scenario if you split to two amps and you make an uneven split,  one amp will be reached with lower gain than intended

  14. Well. i searched in previous topics and even though this subject was talked i couldn't find a solution to a specific doubt.

    What would be the exact difference in Y split and A/B split? I know u can control the level that goes to each channel with A/B. But  isnt this the same  as changing the levels of each path in the merge block (Y split case)?

     Or , in the A/B case, routing more to channel A for example, would result in less INPUT level in channel B? in this case, gain sensitive blocks would suffer (for example in a 70-30 split, no side would get the normal input.. actually neither in the 50-50 split it would get, cause both sides would recieve only half of the input making it odd to use)


    My intention is to split the signal in two amps. So it seens the Y split is more suitable, right? But i saw people complaining the y split reduces both inputs by 3db in order to keep the volume the same when the paths merges. But wouldnt this also change the input gain for the amps? or the level compensation  happens in the merge block?  but in both cases, in a scenario where i want to route each amp to a different output, both signal would be reduced by 3 db even though i didnt merge them?


    Obs: I could make this tests myself but i actually dont have a helix yet and i am considering my possible use cases and if they can be acomplished. Thank you for all the help and sorry for bad english.

  • Create New...